Liberal Taliban Issues Fatwa Against Miss California
- Thread starter Tom B
- Start date
It is pretty simple actually.
Parents either teach their children to think for themselves, to reason to conclusions...or they produce replicants of themselves...
This girl is stripping for a living (she is taking off her clothing for money) which is hardly a real Christian value.
She takes her mommy and daddy's political position in the name of Jesus, then takes off her top and sticks her ass in a camera...
No, this is not a person who has a reasoned position against gay marriage.
So what if marriage has previously between a man and a woman?
Previously we had slavery, child labor, no voting rights for women and minority groups, etc.
Taking a position that something should not change simply because it is "tradition" is the equivalent of not thinking or being able to make a reasoned argument...
Parents either teach their children to think for themselves, to reason to conclusions...or they produce replicants of themselves...
This girl is stripping for a living (she is taking off her clothing for money) which is hardly a real Christian value.
She takes her mommy and daddy's political position in the name of Jesus, then takes off her top and sticks her ass in a camera...
No, this is not a person who has a reasoned position against gay marriage.
So what if marriage has previously between a man and a woman?
Previously we had slavery, child labor, no voting rights for women and minority groups, etc.
Taking a position that something should not change simply because it is "tradition" is the equivalent of not thinking or being able to make a reasoned argument...
Taliban and Democrats tend to agree a lot.
What about adoption?
I woulld rather have gays raise crackhead babies than have to pay higher taxes to keep them in prison for much of their unproductive lives.
Aside from your myopic view and illogic,exactly how the f do 2 people affect your life with their marriage contract?
As far as animals gays arent asking for that just 2 consenting adults over 18.Hell,in the south you have white trash getting married at 14 to their relatives and cousins.
Remember it wasnt gays that inspired the jerry springer show.
Of course there are heterosexual couples that can't have children, but this is not the norm, and is contrary to biological design, in fact.
Typically, they don't discover this fact until after they marry, assuming they are married.
Regarding homosexuals, they know full well that they will be incapable of procreating without scientific intervention no matter what.
Some people in this debate who rail against homosexual marriage are motivated by malice or maybe their own insecurities (although I do suspect that is a small percentage of those opposing legalizing gay marriage).
My view is neither motivated by malice nor insecurity. I have no issue with homosexuals being free of persecution, and being able to express their feelings freely towards those whom they love.
But what the gay community and those who support legalizing gay marriage are asking for is an affirmative recognition of something that is not by design, as a natural law (not marriage per se, but the purpose for marriage).
One thing that is important to acknowledge is the historical role and purpose behind the institution of marriage. Marriage is a device intended to promote procreation, social stability (by discouraging adultery, which is quite destabilizing from a societal standpoint), and the ability to provide an advantageous environment for offspring to thrive - this was historically accomplished because one parent would serve as the breadwinner, and the other parent would serve as a primary caregiver, especially during the most formative period of a child's life. One or both parents would also serve as the disciplinarian, striving to see to it that their children stayed out of danger, did not put others in danger, acquired academic proficiency, and became self-reliant, ultimately.
Now, admittedly, society has been much more accepting of latchkey kids, and heterosexual marriages where both parents work, defeating many of the societal purposes marriage was intended to promote, and I attribute this to modern society's obsession with material wealth - though not all countries or societies experience this to the degree that the United States has. This is somewhat hypocritical if these people who unquestionably accept this situation also rail against gay marriage, IMO.
I stand by my proposition that there are inevitable logical absurdities that result from endorsing the viewpoint that homosexuality is normal, or that gay marriage should be legal.
The slippery slope of accepting either or both of those propositions leads to incredibly absurd outcomes.
I would like a proponent of legalizing gay marriage to tell me if they would also support the right of Mormons to have multiple wives legally, and if not, why not, and if so, why so.
Typically, they don't discover this fact until after they marry, assuming they are married.
Regarding homosexuals, they know full well that they will be incapable of procreating without scientific intervention no matter what.
Some people in this debate who rail against homosexual marriage are motivated by malice or maybe their own insecurities (although I do suspect that is a small percentage of those opposing legalizing gay marriage).
My view is neither motivated by malice nor insecurity. I have no issue with homosexuals being free of persecution, and being able to express their feelings freely towards those whom they love.
But what the gay community and those who support legalizing gay marriage are asking for is an affirmative recognition of something that is not by design, as a natural law (not marriage per se, but the purpose for marriage).
One thing that is important to acknowledge is the historical role and purpose behind the institution of marriage. Marriage is a device intended to promote procreation, social stability (by discouraging adultery, which is quite destabilizing from a societal standpoint), and the ability to provide an advantageous environment for offspring to thrive - this was historically accomplished because one parent would serve as the breadwinner, and the other parent would serve as a primary caregiver, especially during the most formative period of a child's life. One or both parents would also serve as the disciplinarian, striving to see to it that their children stayed out of danger, did not put others in danger, acquired academic proficiency, and became self-reliant, ultimately.
Now, admittedly, society has been much more accepting of latchkey kids, and heterosexual marriages where both parents work, defeating many of the societal purposes marriage was intended to promote, and I attribute this to modern society's obsession with material wealth - though not all countries or societies experience this to the degree that the United States has. This is somewhat hypocritical if these people who unquestionably accept this situation also rail against gay marriage, IMO.
I stand by my proposition that there are inevitable logical absurdities that result from endorsing the viewpoint that homosexuality is normal, or that gay marriage should be legal.
The slippery slope of accepting either or both of those propositions leads to incredibly absurd outcomes.
I would like a proponent of legalizing gay marriage to tell me if they would also support the right of Mormons to have multiple wives legally, and if not, why not, and if so, why so.
"But what the gay community and those who support legalizing gay marriage are asking for is an affirmative recognition of something that is not by design, as a natural law (not marriage per se, but the purpose for marriage)."
Marriage is not normal. It is a human invention. Some animals mate for life, others don't. No animal goes through a marriage ceremony, and plenty of animals have gay sex.
Most of human behavior in a civilized society is not actually normal if we look to purely natural and normal instinctive behavior.
Normal for humans in a civilized society is to let go of primitive animal instincts or traditions born of ancient religions, or hundreds of year old mores...
Man stopped being normal and natural when he stopped having sex in public, urinating and defecating in public, and thousands of other animal behaviors which are considered "normal" and "natural."
Oh, your concept of natural law is religion?
Well, then, we can end this "reasoned" debate if religious edict is your idea of natural law...
"I stand by my proposition that there is inevitable logical absurdities that result from endorsing the viewpoint that homosexuality is normal, or that gay marriage should be legal."
You don't have to endorse a behavior to allow it to be legal for consenting adults.
Your so called inevitable logical absurdities have already been debunked with reason and common sense, as well as the understanding that consenting adults make up their own minds how to live.
Your fascist and "naturally" bigoted thinking is easily demonstrated for its illogical nature, as marriage as you see it is for one purpose...which will exclude the elderly, those who are sterile or otherwise incapable of having children, or those who don't want to have children, etc.
Marriage is not normal. It is a human invention. Some animals mate for life, others don't. No animal goes through a marriage ceremony, and plenty of animals have gay sex.
Most of human behavior in a civilized society is not actually normal if we look to purely natural and normal instinctive behavior.
Normal for humans in a civilized society is to let go of primitive animal instincts or traditions born of ancient religions, or hundreds of year old mores...
Man stopped being normal and natural when he stopped having sex in public, urinating and defecating in public, and thousands of other animal behaviors which are considered "normal" and "natural."
Oh, your concept of natural law is religion?
Well, then, we can end this "reasoned" debate if religious edict is your idea of natural law...
"I stand by my proposition that there is inevitable logical absurdities that result from endorsing the viewpoint that homosexuality is normal, or that gay marriage should be legal."
You don't have to endorse a behavior to allow it to be legal for consenting adults.
Your so called inevitable logical absurdities have already been debunked with reason and common sense, as well as the understanding that consenting adults make up their own minds how to live.
Your fascist and "naturally" bigoted thinking is easily demonstrated for its illogical nature, as marriage as you see it is for one purpose...which will exclude the elderly, those who are sterile or otherwise incapable of having children, or those who don't want to have children, etc.
Get off the crack. The religious Right, owned by the Republicans, is the western equivalent of the Taliban.
I think it's ironic that Coulter refers to "fatwa" regarding a woman who invokes Bible, God and Satan in her commentary:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and...ames-dobson-satan-was-trying-to-tempt-me.html
Priceless.
definitely time to put you on ignore...